The Board of Immigration Appeals has overturned a 14-year-old protection that thousands of green card applicants have relied on when traveling abroad. In Matter of Delcarmen-Lara, 29 I&N Dec. 830 (BIA 2026) (Interim Decision #4233), decided Aug. 13, 2026, the Board held that leaving the United States on advance parole is a “departure” within the meaning of section 212(a)(9)(B)(i)(II) of the Immigration and Nationality Act — and expressly overruled Matter of Arrabally and Yerrabelly, 25 I&N Dec. 771 (BIA 2012).
The practical consequence is severe. Section 212(a)(9)(B) imposes a three-year bar on reentry for someone who departs after accruing more than 180 days of unlawful presence, and a ten-year bar for someone who departs after accruing a year or more. Since 2012, Arrabally had shielded advance parole travelers from that trap: a temporary trip on an approved advance parole document was not treated as a statutory “departure,” so it did not trigger the bars. That shield is gone. Under Delcarmen-Lara, the Board says the term “departure” contains no exception for those who leave temporarily under a grant of advance parole.
The case itself illustrates the stakes. The respondent, a native and citizen of El Salvador with a 2006 removal order, later received DACA and was paroled back into the United States on Jan. 1, 2024 under a grant of advance parole. She moved to reopen proceedings to pursue adjustment of status under INA 245(a). The Board denied the motion — and used the case to overrule Arrabally. The panel was Deputy Chief Appellate Immigration Judge Gorman, joined by Appellate Immigration Judges Montante and Gallow.
There is one significant piece of good news: the ruling is prospective only. The Board ran the five-factor retroactivity analysis from Matter of Cordero-Garcia, 27 I&N Dec. 652, and concluded that the first three factors favored applying the holding prospectively precisely because it was explicitly overruling longstanding precedent that people had relied on. Trips completed on advance parole before Aug. 13, 2026 remain governed by Arrabally and do not retroactively become bar-triggering departures.
Who is actually exposed here matters, because the alarm has been broader than the ruling. The risk runs to people who accrued 180 days or more of unlawful presence before obtaining their current protection — most notably DACA recipients, TPS beneficiaries, and adjustment applicants who spent time in the country without status or past the expiration of an authorized stay. Applicants who have consistently maintained lawful status — for example, employment-based petitioners in valid H-1B, L-1 or O-1 status — generally have no unlawful presence to trigger a bar, and the decision does not change their position.
If you have any period of unlawful presence in your history and are holding an approved advance parole document, the safe course is to get a case-specific assessment before booking travel. An approved advance parole document authorizes your return to the border; after Delcarmen-Lara it does not, by itself, protect you from inadmissibility once you have left. A waiver may be required, and that is a materially different case than the one you filed.
Need help with your immigration petition? Visit QuickFiling.us for AI-guided NIW and EB-1A petition preparation.
Source: Reddit r/USCIS (u/victoriaslatton) — verified against BIA primary source